The Concise Oxford Companion to African American Literature says "its factual information is often unreliable, its politics are contradictory, and it barely discusses Hurston's literary career".[2] As is the case of most of her writing, there is little discussion of issues of race and segregation.[1][3]

The publishers forced extensive changes on the book, making Hurston remove a lengthy attack on American imperialism in Asia; she was also required to tone down sexually-explicit anthropological content and remove some libellous passages.[2] This resulted in a work that appeared not to condemn America's mistreatment of ethnic minorities and was consequently attacked for pandering to white audiences. More recent editions have attempted to insert deleted passages and reconstruct it closer to Hurston's intentions.[2]

It received more negative criticism than most of her other works: Robert Hemenway said it "probably harmed Hurston's reputation" and Alice Walker, otherwise an admirer, was also critical.[4]Harold Preece, reviewing it in 1943 condemned it as "the tragedy of a gifted, sensitive mind, eaten up by an egotism fed on the patronizing admiration of the dominant world".[3] However, Pierre A. Walker has suggested it represents a subversion of traditional autobiography through its fragmentary approach and rejection of the idea of a consistent personality.[4]

Despite its questionable attitude to truth, and its many lacunae, it has been praised for its literary quality; The Concise Oxford Companion to African American Literature says "passages in Dust Tracks are as engaging as any Hurston wrote".[2]